From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: isearch multiple buffers Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:29:08 -0700 Message-ID: References: <877il92pa8.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1193459441 9543 80.91.229.12 (27 Oct 2007 04:30:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:30:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juri Linkov , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Miles Bader" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 27 06:30:39 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IldJg-0005Ag-7X for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:30:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IldJW-0003Oc-Uj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:30:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IldJS-0003MO-E3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:30:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IldJP-0003MC-S2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:30:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IldJP-0003M9-I9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:30:15 -0400 Original-Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IldJJ-0000gK-71; Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:30:09 -0400 Original-Received: from agmgw2.us.oracle.com (agmgw2.us.oracle.com [152.68.180.213]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id l9R4U6KI013537; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:30:06 -0600 Original-Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150]) by agmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.0/Switch-3.2.0) with ESMTP id l9QN5su1015319; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:30:05 -0600 Original-Received: from 141.144.88.161 by acsmt351.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3323136561193459339; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:28:59 -0700 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <877il92pa8.fsf@catnip.gol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:81826 Archived-At: > > I still "think that lots of Dired functionality could usefully > > be ported to Buffer List." You need not agree. ;-) > > So why do you think that effort should be spent duplicating what ibuffer > has already done? I didn't say that effort should be spent duplicating what ibuffer already has. > It's not like ibuffer is a different sort of interface from > list-buffers, it's essentially the same thing + lots of features. I'm not against ibuffer. I am for improving Buffer List, and for integrating it with isearch. If someone wants to integrate Buffer List and ibuffer thoroughly, so that everything in Buffer List is also in ibuffer, I'm not against that. In that case, ibuffer would truly be just a superset of features, not also a different UI. Today, it is not just a collection of additional features - the UI is not the same, even if it looks similar. The relation between Buffer List and ibuffer is not, for example, like that between dired.el and dired-x.el. When you load dired-x.el, all you get is more, not different. And Dired-X is also documented (in its own manual, and mentioned in the Emacs manual). If Buffer List and ibuffer were integrated, with no loss of Buffer List features, then as long as the Buffer-List subset would continue to exist on its own as the default behavior, I would still be in favor of integrating isearch with that subset. Likewise, I would still be in favor of adding some Dired features to that subset. If the two are instead to remain separate, then I'm in favor of adding these features to at least Buffer List, both if possible. If ibuffer were truly built upon Buffer List, then there would be no extra effort in doing that for both. If there is a choice of where to start to add isearch for multiple marked buffers, I vote for Buffer List. I am not in favor of integrating isearch only with ibuffer, which isn't even mentioned in the manual. As I said, however, if ibuffer replaces Buffer List altogether someday, that will be a different story. As I also said, I'm not going to work on this anyway, so what I prefer is probably not too important, beyond the possibility of influencing others.